If you watch this video (chieftan and Hilary Doyle) you will see that even though the hetzer has great sloping and armour. That the armour is not of the same manufacture quality or type as on other German armoured vehicles due to it using Czech technology and factories. When you put MM stats into SD2 please make sure you also add the other special factors that may have a negative effect on the armour and other stats. In other words. Please put as much realistic detail in as possible so we can learn. Don't concentrate on streamlining things but rather letting us learn from the complexity. The stats should actually be more complex than red dragons!!

That's the problem with game devs a lot of the time though. We history buffs want to see our history come to life. Not have it streamlined into a BS figure arbitrarily determined by the developer. If your going to use an arbitrary figure don't use mm. Preferably though at least show your working so that modders can put the correct figures in if need be.

e.g. We would see in the stats:

slope = steel quality by year =steel quality by batch = mm =

total effective armour rating =

Like red dragon you can bring up complex stats if you want to see how it's all worked out.

I see your point, I'd also like to see the lower silhouette of a Stug/Hetzer being rewarded somehow same as penalizing Kingstiger or IS clumsiness and especially the slow rate of fire and crew awarnewss especially for the Soviet tank.

I don't think is a big deal to take this into consideration as well, same as the steel composition. Yet, Hetzer was mainly interesting because it's low profile and maneuverability so I don't think a slightly less qualitative steel will make a big difference.

Destraex wrote:In red dragon vehicles were classified by their size which added advantages like you speak of. They probably were in sd1 as well. But the stats were not verbose or shown to the player.

It's just a number scale, the balancing will not be different. People can argue about what should be the armour value in SD1 as well and it will be the same in SD2. No vehicle has homogenous armour thickness over the whole front of the vehicle anyway so the method to calculate the effective thickness is as debatable as the number SD1 displays. And we are not even accounting for the angling of the tanks in combat other factors which would further complicate game mechanics. So I really don't see any problem here, take it as it is, an estimation of an effective thickness over the front/side/rear of the vehicle.

Darkmil you make our point exactly. We want the extra complexity and the working shown for all angles, thickness, armour type and quality etc. What is not desired is the dumbing down of stats we saw in SD1 to try to make the game into a competition level starcraft stats cruncher. The game claims to want to do things realistically. That means next level of detail in the armour modelling. Physics is what the game does poorly however. So I imagine their is not too much point. But it is nice for those fanatics that want to see all of the stats for wargaming and learning purposes.